SDT keeps conditions on solicitor's certificate: evidence matters

What happened

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has refused to lift restrictions on the practising certificate of Kulwant Singh Manak, according to Legal Futures. The tribunal said he had produced "insufficient evidence" to support his application. The conditions prevent him from being an owner or manager of a law firm, a compliance officer, or a sole practitioner.

Mr Manak was suspended for two years in January 2018, and six conditions were imposed on his practising certificate when the suspension ended. Three were removed by the High Court that summer, when his appeal against the suspension was unsuccessful. He argued that the remaining three were "punitive in effect and had caused him difficulties in obtaining work".

The SDT was not persuaded. It found that the documents he relied on did not establish that he had "lost work as a result of the restrictions". It also noted that one document formed part of his publicly available disciplinary record "irrespective of whether the practising restrictions remained in force". He was ordered to pay costs of £6,670.

The background

Legal Futures reports that the case goes back to 2012, when the SDT brought proceedings against three partners, including Mr Manak, and two solicitors at the Coventry firm Heer Manak. Mr Manak was the manager, owner and COLP of that firm, which closed in 2013 after failing to secure indemnity insurance. He was suspended after the SDT found, among other things, that he had acted recklessly and without integrity by allowing the client account to operate in breach of the rules, and that he had failed to supervise staff properly.

On rehabilitation, the tribunal said the certificates he provided for three courses completed in 2024 gave "limited information about the content of the courses or the learning derived from them". A character reference was described as "general in its terms" and gave little specific evidence of rehabilitation. The tribunal also said he had not provided documentary evidence confirming his position at the firm where he works as a consultant solicitor.

What it means for the reader

The decision turns on proof. The tribunal looked for specific, documented evidence and did not find it. The article does not mention AI.

Where Counsel AI fits

Counsel AI's drafts and first reads cite the section of legislation they rely on, so a reviewer can go straight to the provision and check it. Counsel AI is software, not a law firm.